Things are not looking good for ATI. Many people have been spending the last quarter talking about how great this new architecture would be and what new horizons it would see. After it is all said and done, it just barely manages to even be competitive with SLI.
ATI raised the bar high on itself by making all of these bold claims. Now they aren't reaching that standard and people are dissapointed. That's not the way you get customer support. Words don't mean anything when the product doesn't back them up. ATI will never gain any real ground until they learn better marketing practices. You can't lie to the consumer and expect them to be so stupid that they won't realize that it was a lie. You might be able to fool some of the people all of the time, but you can never fool all of the people some of the time. It's a shame that they depend on the stupidity of the consumer to sell their products. That should be a wake up call to those of you that are going to buy these products strictly as a result of the rumors that have been floating around for the last quarter.
Nice work Sander.
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
I could probably handle the 1600x1200 res. but 60hz refresh rate? No way! Ten minutes of that and I'd need a trip to the eye doctor.
ASUS A8N SLI Premium
3700+ (San Diego)
2 x 74GB Raptors in RAID 0
2 x 1gb modules of OCZ Platinum
SoundBlaster X-Fi Extreme Music
OCZ Modstream 520W PSU
BenQ 1620 DVD-RW
BenQ 1610 DVD-RW
LG 4163 DVD-RW
LG 4167 DVD-RW
Well, I expect Supreet is not awake yet to join in on this discussion...but I have to agree with Sander. These numbers are very disappointing. I have a 7800GTX and I was actually hoping to see ATI beat my card (I can run games just fine with my setup, no need to bash the other side just because they made a better product.)...but alas, the early goings indicate that CrossFire, if indeed better, will have show itself when we see the x1800 line. For now, I see that nVidia is clearly still top-dog, but ATI has to do good in this generation, or else competition will cease to exist and therefore the advancement of technology will slow to a crawl. Example? Look how bad Madden 06 is. It's little more than a roster update with some new features (QB Vision) that fall on their face. Why? Because EA knew it was the only game that would be out there, hence sell regardless of its quality.
nVidia would hopefully not rest on its laurels in the absence of stiff competition, but I don't want to find out. ATI needs to step it up and shut up the naysayers and skeptics (of which I am quickly becoming one) with the R520. Frankly, I'm in nVidia's camp for a while as far as my personal rig goes due to the mobo restrictions involved in using either company's dual GPU setup, so I'm not feeling the burn as much as some might. If the R520 in CrossFire mode doesn't impress, my next $500 spent will be to buy a twin brother for my GTX.
Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe Mobo
AMD Athlon X2 4400+ Toledo
XFX GeForce 7800GTX (490/1300)
2GB Corsair XMS Pro DDR400 RAM
The ONLY thing I don't like about CrossFire is the limiting 1600x1200 @ 60Hz. That bothers me, though ATI in their right mind isn't going to just let it sit there... but... hey, I'm on AGP, what do I care? I paid less for a faster card.
On the other hand, I've seen enough anti-ATI bullshit out of this site to choke a horse. This is downright ridiculous, and it's certainly not "professional journalism," fer sure.
You simply can't be arsed to take your comments elsewhere can you? I suggest you read up on Crossfire on TechReport, Anandtech, etc. and you'll see they basically have the same comments. This has nothing to do with previous issues, I'm just reporting on the status quo of CrossFire here. So unless you have arguments, backed by facts, not fiction, that my comments on CrossFire are way off I suggest you refrain from posting.
"On the other hand, I've seen enough anti-ATI bulls**t out of this site to choke a horse. This is downright ridiculous, and it's certainly not "professional journalism," fer sure."
The way you say that, discredits everything you were trying to say.
Sander was stating the facts. If ATi had buit the Crossfire a little more differently, Sander would have had a different article right now. You can go to any tech site, and they will have the exact same views and opinions on the Crossfire, just like Sander here.
Now for my opinions on the Crossfire. I must admit, the ability to use two different cards is quite an amazing idea, but it has one big drawback. The fact that it will "revert" and render with the ability of the "weakest" out of the two cards is very dissapointing.
The limitation of 60hz at a high resolution is just... Ugh...
What's really interesting is what ATi had to say about this limitation. They say that "Gamers don't use this type of resolution". Ha! Shows what they know. Some people go all-out and want their games full of eye-candy all the time, and the Crossfire simply does not allow this. Without a big headache that is.
Seeing both tech specs of the SLI and Crossfire, I would rather have an SLI. The competition between nVidia and ATi is healthy for the technology today. ATi seems to be dying out fast though. Hopefully the x1800 can bring them back in the competition. The Crossfire is starting to look like it's "too little, too late".
This generation Crossfire is said to be limited to 1600X1200 for the X850/800 series. There's a chance a patch might fix this. As for the upcoming X1800 Crossfire, resolution is not a factor since there is no limitation. Judging by what Aleks said he seems to be a Nvidia fanboi talking total nonsense. Seems to me we should wait for the final product before speculating any longer.
Down right disappointing is all that can be said for the Cross-fire solution! I was also hoping to see ATi hot on the heels on nVidia to keep the rate of development up, but it looks like thatís put a spanner to my plan.
1600x1200 max at 60 Hz, never mind the rest of the shortfalls? One of the main points to multi-GPU technology is the increase in performance at higher resolutions, so that basically rules out any chance of seeing 90% of users downgrading to Cross-Fire.
And please A_Pickle..."Payed less for a faster card" Uh yeah... its not like the PCI-E bus is faster than AGP... no not at all. Never mind the fact that your running a Dell that also discredits anything you may have to say about using computer - period.
But back to the point, in my opinion it really is too late for ATi's crossfire. SLi is far to established now to see users spending money on an inferior product even with the introduction of the R520, weather they are die-hard ATi fans or not.
LINUX - XP Duel Boot.
Athlon 64 X2 4400+.
Asus A8N - SLI deluxe.
2GB Corsair PC3200
BFG GeForce 7800 GTX(Pci-Express)
2x WD Raptor 10k - Raid 0.
ATI is in deep trouble at this point I would guess. The PC graphics market is hugely competitive and a company can't afford to miss a new generation of technology as completely as ATI has missed this one without losing huge amounts of capital. This loss of capital then makes it that much harder to catch up and compete in the next generation of technology, which sets the company back even further, etc. etc. in a death spiral to bankruptcy. Add to this the fact that the top executives at ATI have seemingly cashed out their stock based on profits inflated by false rhetoric and we may be looking at the end of ATI as we know it.
This is not a good thing for consumers as the only remaining PC graphics company will be NVIDIA who, with no competition, will be less apt to push the technology as hard as they have been. Their only motivation for offering a new product line would be to periodically flush the market with an equipment refresh to keep the industry healthy. Every two -three years would be sufficient to keep cash flows up while limiting R&D costs.
Maybe Intel will jump in and buy out the near dead ATI but does anyone want that 800 pound gorilla dominating another market?
ATI has one last chance to stay alive and that is to catch up to and beat NVIDIA in the next round which will probably be in the middle of next year. If they miss that time too, or play it the same as they did this round, then they will cease to exist.
Modified Lian Li PC 7077A
Dual Watercooling Loops
Asus P5K Deluxe BIOS 0404
Core 2 Duo Q6600 (3600MHz@1.46v)
Max OC 4050MhHz at 1.65v
1 x XFX 8800GTX XXX Watercooled
2 GB Team Xtreme DDR2 800-PC6400
2 x 150gb WD in Raptors in RAID 0
1 x 640
I'm sure Ati will do fine.........they are providing the gpu's for both the new x-box and nintendo....at least that was the last I heard. It is sad that they aren't keeping pace. Monopolies are a bad thign for consumers.
And things just seem to keep on getting worse by the minute, ATI has apparantly dropped the warranty for the bulk of its products from three to one year, according to the below url. Is it just me or is that another bad decision in a whole slew of bad decisions they've made recently?
I hope the consumers can see past all of the ATI fanboy hype. If quality for your money is what is driving today's consumers, then they need to start looking at the facts. ATI is losing ground rapidly. They are charging higher prices. They are extremely late with all of their recent products. Their products aren't giving the results that were promised by ATI. Their warranty is now shorter. Their stocks are dropping. It is indeed a sad day for this company, but they have no one to blame but their staff. If this and more is what we have to look forward to, then I can say that the intelligent choice would be to move to a company that doesn't have these problems.
I've given the warranty situation a bit more thought and I can only arrive at the following conclusions, let me run them by you and see whether you agree, but let me first summarize the gist of the matter:
'In essence it comes down to the fact that there would be no point to reducing the warranty if ATI didn't feel it would significantly reduce warranty fulfillment costs. In other words, they do it because they expect cards to fail which will need to be replaced or repaired which cuts into their revenues.'
Let me illustrate this with an example. Suppose you work at a car manufacturing plant and you machine a part for the gearbox that makes sure it is properly lubricated. For some reason you manage to machine these wrong which will cause them to break within 100K miles and ship a box of 1000 off to manufacturing. The next day you report your error to management and they investigate. The company does an analysis and determines that in 10% of the cases the gearbox will break down while the car is still under warranty. Therefore it is less expensive to only repair warranty claims than to have a full recall for all the cars made that day to replace the part.
So, a warranty is simply a cost item for a manufacturer. The longer you warrant something the more failures you will have to pay for. Especially when you cut corners by using lesser quality parts, as illustrated above, which could very well be the case here. Shorter warranties means less cost, but you have to ask yourself does it come with a price reduction for the consumer? If not then the company is simply trying to up their revenue by cutting costs. Either because they use cheaper, lesser quality parts that have a shorter lifespan, hence the product is now of lesser quality overall, or because current warranty claims eat up a (substantial) part of their revenue. A reduction in warranty should go hand in hand with a price reduction, if not, then the above is true.